The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 9 August 2026.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are pending and examined. Claims 1-2, and 4 are currently amended. Claim 3 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Claim interpretation under 35 USC 112f is withdrawn due to amendment and argument.
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claim rejection as to claims 1-2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §101 has been carefully considered. Applicant’s argument is directed towards new claim language that has not been previously considered. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The new claim language does not overcome the rejection and is set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claim rejection as to claims 1-2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a1) has been carefully considered. Applicant’s argument is directed towards new claim language that has not been previously considered. The amendment necessitates a new ground of rejection and is set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claim 1:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine, which is statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim and the other claims recite an apparatus configured to detect an external situation, detect a traveling state, estimate a traveling route, add information, identify a path, determine whether the traveling route matches the path, add a determination result, and determine whether to permit generation of a traveling route map as recited in independent claim 1. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a controller”. That is, other than reciting “by the controller” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the controller” language, the claim encompasses a person a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by the controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means to detect an external situation, detect a traveling state, store map information, estimate a traveling route, add information identify a path, determine whether the traveling route matches the path, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The determining step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the estimating, identifying, and determining steps), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the storing steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that automatic driving with aid of two dimensional data and cloud data is well known [0003]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2 and 4:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2 and 4 are directed to an apparatus. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2 and 4 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2 and 4 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2 and 4 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2 and 4 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2 and 4 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2 and 4 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2 and 4 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2 and 4 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al., US 2022/0236064 (A1).
As to claim 1, Takeda teaches a traveling route estimation apparatus, comprising:
an external situation detection unit mounted on a vehicle and configured to detect an external situation around the vehicle, the external situation detection unit including at least one of a camera, a radar, and a LiDAR (“camera 13 is installed at, for example, a vehicle front portion, a vehicle side portion, and a vehicle rear portion and outputs image data in which, for example, the front side of the vehicle, the side of the vehicle, and the rear of the vehicle are taken to the map information generating device 11 and the automatic driving control device 12. A radar 14 is installed at, for example, the vehicle front portion, the vehicle side portion, and the vehicle rear portion and outputs a polar coordinate (a distance and a position) of a reflection point of an object present at, for example, the front side of the vehicle”, ¶28);
a traveling state detection unit configured to detect a traveling state of the vehicle, the traveling state detection unit including at least one of an inertial measurement unit, a wheel speed sensor, and a positioning unit (“detecting unit 15 (own vehicle position detecting means) is various sensors, such as a GPS receiver, a gyro sensor, an accelerator sensor, a vehicle speed sensor, and a direction sensor used to, for example, detect the position of own vehicle”, ¶28); and
a controller including a computer and storing map information in advance (Fig. 2 and related text; map information generating device 11 and HD map 114), wherein the controller is configured to perform:
estimating a traveling route on which the vehicle should travel at a predetermined cycle based on the external situation detected by the external situation detection unit;
adding information on the traveling route to the map information in association
with position information of the vehicle at a time point when the traveling route is estimated (“map manager 112 downloads highly accurate map information of the traveling route and the driving lane from the second own position (current own vehicle position) to a destination at a predetermined distance ahead (for example, 7 km) from the second own position matched by the locator 111 (or the information of the traveling route and the driving lane detected (identified) by the locator 111) from the HD map 114”, ¶41);
identifying a path on which the vehicle has actually traveled based on the traveling state detected by the traveling state detection unit (“locator 111 detects (identifies) the traveling route on the HD map 114 and the driving lane (lane) in the traveling route from the signal from the detecting unit 15 and further the image data output from the camera 13 and matches the position of own vehicle on the HD map 114 as a second own position. Here, the second own position includes information of the traveling route where own vehicle travels and information of the driving lane where own vehicle travels in the traveling route”, ¶40);
determining whether the traveling route matches the path (“compares the information of the first own position input from the locator 101 with the second own position input from the locator 111, and determines whether the second own position is included in the first own position. When the second own position is included, the determining unit 122 outputs a match signal to the locator 101, and when the second own position is no longer included, the determining unit 122 outputs the unmatched signal to the locator 101”, ¶44);
adding a determination result that the traveling route does not match the path to the map information in association with the position information of the vehicle at the time point when the traveling route is estimated together with the information on the traveling route (When the second own position is included, the determining unit 122 outputs a match signal to the locator 101, and when the second own position is no longer included, the determining unit 122 outputs the unmatched signal to the locator 101”, ¶44); and
determining whether to permit generation of a traveling route map based on the
traveling route, based on the determination result (“when the locator 111 determines that the position of own vehicle is outside the range of the HD map 114, the map manager 112 or the map information calculating unit 113 does not operate”, ¶45).
As to claim 2, Takeda teaches a traveling route estimation apparatus further comprising:
a travel actuator mounted on the vehicle (“automatic driving control device 12”, ¶45), wherein
the controller determines whether to permit control of the travel actuator based on the traveling route on a course of the vehicle based on the determination result stored in association with the map information (Fig. 2 and related text; “when the locator 111 determines that the position of own vehicle is outside the range of the HD map 114, the map manager 112 or the map information calculating unit 113 does not operate, and the automatic driving control device 12 does not operate”, ¶45).
As to claim 4, Takeda teaches a traveling route estimation apparatus, wherein the controller calculates reliability of the traveling route based on the determination result, and adds the reliability to the map information in associated with the position information of the vehicle at the time point when the traveling route is estimated (Figs. 5 and 6 and related text; “Step S104, the calculating unit 105 calculates the matching reliability of a traveling route A (see FIG. 5 and the like) on the guidance route 91 and a traveling route B (see FIG. 5 and the like) that is branched from the traveling route. The matching reliability is defined as a value indicative of probability that own vehicle travels the traveling route for at least one of the traveling routes. Here, the matching reliability is calculated as an index of a possibility of traveling of the respective traveling routes of the traveling route A on the guidance route 91 and the traveling route B branched from the traveling route A. The matching reliability is used as the index to estimate the traveling route where own vehicle travels until the locator 101 (or the locator 111) can determine whether own vehicle travels any of the traveling route A and the traveling route B using the signal from the detecting unit 15 or the like. The matching reliability is calculated from a trajectory of the traveling route where own vehicle has traveled up to the present, the vehicle speed, a steering angle, an angle of the branch at the branch point of the two traveling routes, a distance between the two traveling routes, and the like”, ¶56).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights